Murray-Darling Basin Plan

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:56): My question is again to the Minister for Environment and Water. Will the minister concede that the 450 gigalitres will not only not be delivered in full by 2024 but under current settings will never be delivered in full? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Dr CLOSE: Since the Marshall Liberal government made a deal with the Eastern States, the Australian government has terminated the voluntary buyback program, terminated the on-farm efficiency program and is considering 34 off-farm efficiency projects, only three of which make any reference to potential water savings.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (14:56): The deputy leader bandies around a whole range of half facts that are with questionable science and is clearly relying on a report that was released today by the Conservation Council of South Australia and the Australia Institute.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Unfortunately—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Wright!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —they are half facts here, and they should listen so that they can educate themselves about a very complicated thing, which is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Unfortunately, this report that was released today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Cheltenham is warned for a second time.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —is based on a key assumption that a stocktake document is used as the basis for this Conservation Council report. This document was compiled solely to identify projects towards the 450 gigalitres, but my understanding is that that stocktake document was actually much broader than that looking at the projects that would provide regional stimulus and/or contribute towards agricultural productivity across the basin as well.

While it did consider 450-gigalitre projects, it also looked at other things. For this to be the pivotal document relied on by the Australia Institute and the Conservation Council is quite concerning. Notwithstanding that, I have today written to the federal water minister, the Hon. Keith Pitt, asking that the federal government be a bit more transparent in their public statements around what—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Well, look, I was just using that—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You're getting very angry, Joe. I think it is very important—

The SPEAKER: The minister will not respond to interjections.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, I shouldn't respond to interjections, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that the federal government place more information as to the potential water savings—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Cheltenham will cease interjecting.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Obviously, these projects under the 450-gigalitre program must contain water savings in order to get federal funding. I understand that to be something that is translated into law. They are not able to receive money out of this account if these projects do not deliver actual water savings and deliver actual water.

While this report that has been released gives us an opportunity to make sure that we ask questions around transparency and getting that information out there with regard to water, it is very, very important that questionable science and half facts aren't relied upon, and that leads me to ask those questions to make sure that we do get that transparent material into the public domain.